Who do you credit as the most reliable witnesses?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police most likely had nothing else but the two vastly different statements by Schwartz to the police and Star,both from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Schwartz was too important to a murder inquiry,any inquiry into a murder not including an assault 15 minutes before where the body is found is very very wrong.The Coroner had to have compelling reasons not to have him there.Common sense,it had to be untrustworthiness.

We can’t make these kind of assumptions based on a perception of common sense. It’s like a layman making a medical diagnosis based on what they see as ‘common sense.’

Can you prove to us that Schwartz, worried about giving evidence after being seen by the man he believed was the ripper, didn’t simply vanish? For all that we know, he might have left London to stay with a friend or family until the inquest was over. If the police couldn’t find him they couldn’t have summoned him. What could they have done? Delayed the inquest indefinitely? Issued a vague description of him to random police stations at various locations? Done a London-wide house to house search for him? Come on. How can you prove that, in fear of reprisals, he asked the police if he could be left out of the inquest? And as his evidence was of no specific value to the inquest they agreed? I claim none of these, or other suggestions as a fact, so why do you consider your suggestion as a fact (when yours is the only suggestion that we have solid evidence against?)

[Darryl Kenyon]

There is, I think, nothing in any police record to indicate who these two persons might have been, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that the police ever rejected Schwartz's statement. Indeed, they seem to have still been accepting his story and descriptions weeks later.

The argument I was trying to make in post 111 is that the police accepted Schwartz interview taken by Abberline ,[ Schwartz one and only statement, as far as I can tell ] . And perhaps Abberline's view on him as a potential witness. We know Schwartz had an interpreter , some key points of the interview may have been lost in translation.
Now that's not to say Abberline was wrong on his view of Schwartz but consider this. Abberline accepted Hutch as a witness saying he believed his account to be true.
Yet Hutch as a witness splits opinion with less people believing his account prima facie than Schwartz.
That's not to say Abberline was gullible, but was he slightly credulous when he thought there may have been a breakthrough in the case.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

We can’t make these kind of assumptions based on a perception of common sense. It’s like a layman making a medical diagnosis based on what they see as ‘common sense.’

And as his evidence was of no specific value to the inquest they agreed?

Hi Herlock

I can't hold this view . Baxter in his summing up mentions Browns account. Surely he could have added , something like - There is other evidence being investigated which may suggest Brown may not have seen Liz or/and he may have been out with the time.

Schwartz evidence is of specific value in that he places Liz at the very spot she was murdered 15 mins later. No other witness does this at so close a time.

Regards Darryl

[DJA]

Except Pipeman.

[Elamarna]

The fact Schwartz was not in the inquest said a lot, irrespective of the police views,the police could make mistakes too,Packer,Violena,Hutchinson.

You appear to be suggesting that Baxter, who apparently never spoke to Schwartz, or examined him on his evidence, had a greater and more insightful understanding than the police who did.
How was that achieved?

I would go so far as to suggest such arrogance would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Baxter.

It does say alot, sadly alot more than you appear to realise.
That you reject all alternatives, but that he was untrustworthy ( a suggestion not backed by a since source, or reference) simply demonstrates how closed you are.

Steve

[Varqm]

You appear to be suggesting that Baxter, who apparently never spoke to Schwartz, or examined him on his evidence, had a greater and more insightful understanding than the police who did.
How was that achieved?

I would go so far as to suggest such arrogance would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Baxter.

It does say alot, sadly alot more than you appear to realise.
That you reject all alternatives, but that he was untrustworthy ( a suggestion not backed by a since source, or reference) simply demonstrates how closed you are.

Steve

If anything,if Schwartz was trustworthy, he would put him in.
The evidence is in Schwartz's two very different version of what he saw , which you choose to ignore,this was from the horse's mouth,not an interpretation if whether the witness was truthful or not.

Is there any other evidence presented by Schwartz that the police possessed and not by Baxter?

If you still cant understand the importance of an assault 15 minutes where the victim's body was found in a murder inquiry than I'd do not know what you're understanding of a murder inquiry is,the inquest when there is a murder was not a medical inquiry .If not untrustworthy Schwartz was in,inquest-wise.

The other alternatives have no basis.Mine are the two above and the law.There are more points but I do not care to elaborate.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Except Pipeman.

But Pipeman wasn't at the inquest either. Nor is there any evidence he was found and eliminated.

Regards Darryl

[Varqm]

We can’t make these kind of assumptions based on a perception of common sense. It’s like a layman making a medical diagnosis based on what they see as ‘common sense.’

Can you prove to us that Schwartz, worried about giving evidence after being seen by the man he believed was the ripper, didn’t simply vanish? For all that we know, he might have left London to stay with a friend or family until the inquest was over. If the police couldn’t find him they couldn’t have summoned him. What could they have done? Delayed the inquest indefinitely? Issued a vague description of him to random police stations at various locations? Done a London-wide house to house search for him? Come on. How can you prove that, in fear of reprisals, he asked the police if he could be left out of the inquest? And as his evidence was of no specific value to the inquest they agreed? I claim none of these, or other suggestions as a fact, so why do you consider your suggestion as a fact (when yours is the only suggestion that we have solid evidence against?)

For the umpteenth time Schwartz would have been mentioned in the inquest.Lesser witnesses have been mentioned and searched.Schwartz would be also been searched to appear and also to be informed of a fine if he did not appear.
.If the police submitted Schwartz as a witness they knew or have an idea where he was .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I can't hold this view . Baxter in his summing up mentions Browns account. Surely he could have added , something like - There is other evidence being investigated which may suggest Brown may not have seen Liz or/and he may have been out with the time.

Schwartz evidence is of specific value in that he places Liz at the very spot she was murdered 15 mins later. No other witness does this at so close a time.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

The problem is that it’s not the aim of an inquest to come up with a TOD. They only have to record what day that she was killed. They knew that from the fact that she wasn’t there when Eagle was in the yard but she was there when Diemschitz arrived.

[Elamarna]

If anything,if Schwartz was trustworthy, he would put him in.
The evidence is in Schwartz's two very different version of what he saw , which you choose to ignore,this was from the horse's mouth,not an interpretation if whether the witness was truthful or not.

Is there any other evidence presented by Schwartz that the police possessed and not by Baxter?

If you still cant understand the importance of an assault 15 minutes where the victim's body was found in a murder inquiry than I'd do not know what you're understanding of a murder inquiry is,the inquest when there is a murder was not a medical inquiry .If not untrustworthy Schwartz was in,inquest-wise.

The other alternatives have no basis.Mine are the two above and the law.There are more points but I do not care to elaborate.

My friend, your entire post simply reinforces that it is you who does not understand.

Yes the report is very important, possibly the most important thing in the whole case.

That you seem to think the difference in the two accounts is enough for Baxter to simply dismiss Schwartz without questioning him, is the stuff of fiction I am sorry to say.

You appear to believe you KNOW what Baxter knew and to understand how he was thinking, that I once again again is unrealistic.

The inquest is NOT part of the murder inquiry, that is conducted by the police,NOT by the coroner.

You have convinced yourself that Schwartz is untrustworthy, and that is the reason he appears not to have been called.
To say other alternatives have no basis, places you in the same position as those who claim only X can be the killer.

It's confirmation basis.

Steve


Steve.

[Varqm]

My friend, your entire post simply reinforces that it is you who does not understand.

Yes the report is very important, possibly the most important thing in the whole case.

That you seem to think the difference in the two accounts is enough for Baxter to simply dismiss Schwartz without questioning him, is the stuff of fiction I am sorry to say.

You appear to believe you KNOW what Baxter knew and to understand how he was thinking, that I once again again is unrealistic.

The inquest is NOT part of the murder inquiry, that is conducted by the police,NOT by the coroner.

You have convinced yourself that Schwartz is untrustworthy, and that is the reason he appears not to have been called.
To say other alternatives have no basis, places you in the same position as those who claim only X can be the killer.

It's confirmation basis.

Steve


Steve.

Wrong, inquests becomes a murder inquiry if it was murder,not a light inquiry or a medical inquiry. .
OK ,hypothetically,so you're report of a murder does not include an assault on the victim 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found and you are satisfied with your report as good. Ok.
The completeness of a murder inquiry,the two very different version of events by the witness and the law are my evidence.
OK. 100% trust that the police could not have made mistakes.

[Elamarna]

For the umpteenth time Schwartz would have been mentioned in the inquest.Lesser witnesses have been mentioned and searched.Schwartz would be also been searched to appear and also to be informed of a fine if he did not appear.
.If the police submitted Schwartz as a witness they knew or have an idea where he was .

Your thinking here is deeply flawed.
They had an address for him, when he gave his statement, but he may simply have left London, after that. If he did so pray tell me how they would locate him?

Now I don't personally go down that route.

I suggest either his evidence was given in camera, or a request was made by the police, to Baxter, to not call him.
It would of course then be down to Baxter to decide if the evidence would result in a material difference to the result..

That you dismiss such out of hand, is your choice. However, it is simply your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the umpteenth time Schwartz would have been mentioned in the inquest.Lesser witnesses have been mentioned and searched.Schwartz would be also been searched to appear and also to be informed of a fine if he did not.If the police submitted Schwartz as a witness they knew or have an idea where he was .

And for the umpteenth time “no he wouldn’t.” You are so wrong on this it’s difficult to understand it without thinking that you have some agenda for discrediting Schwartz. Of all the ‘options’ you go for the one that we have concrete evidence against!

Swanson - October 19th:

“If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it,”

Abberine - November 1st:

“and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.”

Please point out where it’s said that Schwartz was submitted as a witness. And please don’t try using this minor error by Anderson (in which also he also confirms that the police believed Schwartz by the way:

“With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St.”

Everything tells us that the police were treating Schwartz as a valuable witness well after the inquest. I fail to see how you can ignore this. It’s obvious stuff.


I only made a suggestion that he might a fled. He would have needed a summons to appear at the inquest. How could he have received a summons if he wasn’t at the address that he gave? Straightforward stuff I’d have thought.

That Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest because he wasn’t believed by the police is an absolute non-starter. I don’t know why w waste time discussing it. It can and should be ignored. The answer lies elsewhere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong, inquests becomes a murder inquiry if it was murder,not a light inquiry or a medical inquiry .
OK ,hypothetically,so you're report of a murder does not include an assault on the victim 15 minutes before where the victim's body was found and you are satisfied with your report as good. Ok.

You can’t mould the criteria of an inquest simply to suit yourself. An inquest transparently isn’t a murder inquiry. 4 aims, that is all. Schwartz could contribute to none of them. Fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My friend, your entire post simply reinforces that it is you who does not understand.

Yes the report is very important, possibly the most important thing in the whole case.

That you seem to think the difference in the two accounts is enough for Baxter to simply dismiss Schwartz without questioning him, is the stuff of fiction I am sorry to say.

You appear to believe you KNOW what Baxter knew and to understand how he was thinking, that I once again again is unrealistic.

The inquest is NOT part of the murder inquiry, that is conducted by the police,NOT by the coroner.

You have convinced yourself that Schwartz is untrustworthy, and that is the reason he appears not to have been called.
To say other alternatives have no basis, places you in the same position as those who claim only X can be the killer.

It's confirmation basis.

Steve


Steve.

100% correct